Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 15-28 remain as originally presented; claim(s) 23-28 remain withdrawn.
Upon considering said arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 02/19/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treger (US-20090092899-A1; cited in 08/18/2022 IDS):
Regarding claims 15, 19, and 21, Treger discloses a silicon-based powder (“product”) suitable for use in a negative electrode (“anode”) of a battery ([0027]), the silicon-based powder indicated to comprise at least silicon-based particles (“nano-sized silicon”) as claimed in claim 15 alongside a non-silicon metal oxide product ([0027]).
Treger inherently discloses the silicon-based particles are distinct from the non-silicon-based particles since the effects of avoiding forming silicon/non-silicon compounds (e.g., metal silicates) and of allowing the metal oxide products to be removed from Treger’s silicon-based powder ([0027], [0030], [0033-0034]) are substantially the same as what the original instant specification (P7/L20-25) demonstrates as effects of the distinct non-silicon-based particles (MPEP 2112).
Treger’s silicon-based particles inherently possess a number-based particle size distribution with a ds50 value of 200 nm or less as claimed in claim 15 since they have an average particle size of less than 100 nm ([0010]) and are further taught to be preferred to be 10-50 nm ([0020], [0031]).
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to persuasively demonstrate that Trager does not inherently possess the claimed ds50 value being at most 200 nm, because Trager further teaches that smaller average particle sizes such as 10-50 nm are preferable due to less capacity fade and better cycle life compared to large silicon particles ([0009], [0020]), it would still have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed ds50 range of values by reducing the particle sizes so as provide a desired level of capacity fade and cycle life improvement.
An oxygen content of Treger’s silicon-based powder is necessarily less than 20% by weight since a composition of the silicon-based particles is mostly or entirely silicon ([0027], see Examples 1-4 [0040-0047]), and the silicon-based powder comprises upwards of 90 wt% of the silicon-based particles ([0033]); the composition of elements besides silicon (e.g., oxygen) in the silicon-based powder therefore cannot be greater than 20 wt%.
Treger further discloses the silicon-based powder comprises an element M as a reducing agent which includes one or more metals such as Mg, Ca, Al, Li, Na, K, Cs, Sr, Ba, Ti and/or Zr ([0027]), where the instant specification (see pp. 5 ln. 30—pp. 6 ln. 5) names at least Zr, AI, Mg, Ti and Ca as elements M from a group of metals that have a Standard Gibbs free energy of formation at a temperature T of the oxide from their zerovalent state which is lower than the Standard Gibbs free energy of formation at the same temperature T of SiO2 from zerovalent silicon, the temperature T being equal to or higher than 573K and lower than 1373K, and the remaining elements (Li, Na, K, Cs, Sr, Ba) which can also reduce SiO2 to Si during Treger’s reaction conditions (Treger [0027]) similarly meet this criterion.
Treger fails to expressly disclose the content of elements M in the silicon-based powder as being at least 0.10% and at most 5% the content of Si by weight as claimed in claim 15, but a skilled artisan would decrease a non-silicon-based particle content to <10 wt% to increase the silicon (i.e., active material) content ([0008]) between 90-100 wt% ([0033], Example 1 [0040-0041]). The non-silicon-based particles also beneficially protect the silicon from electrolyte passivation and volumetric change ([0034]), such that a skilled artisan would desire to include some amount (i.e., >0 wt%) of non-silicon-based particles.
While an exact proportion of element M relative to Si depends on both the relative contents and oxidation states both elements, a skilled artisan optimizing a weight of Treger’s of non-silicon-based particles between 0-10% by weight would necessarily utilize at least a portion of the claimed element M content range of 0.10-5 wt% based on the weight of Si in Treger’s silicon-based powder as claimed in claim 15, and of 0.40-5 wt% as claimed in claim 19 as the element M is present as a metal oxide in Treger’s non-silicon-based particles (Treger [0033]) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Additionally, the one or more elements M are present in the non-silicon-based particles (“metal oxide products”) ([0027], [0033-0034]; see discussion of non-silicon-based particles distinct from the silicon-based particles in p. 3 of this Office action), thus fully reading on claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Treger discloses the silicon-based powder according to claim 15. Treger’s silicon-based particles inherently comprise a surface layer with an average molar composition SiOx with 0≤x<1 as the particles are formed by reducing silicon oxide particles (i.e., decreasing x to 0) using particles of element M (i.e., decreasing x to 0) (Treger [0027]), where the reduction process is noted in the instant specification to occur in at least a surface of the silicon-based particles (inst. spec. p. 6 ln. 5-25).
Regarding claim 17, modified Treger discloses the silicon-based powder according to claim 15. When considering all elements except oxygen, Treger’s non-silicon-based particles necessarily and inherently comprise 100% element M and fall within claim 17’s claimed range of at least 60% metal M by weight, since the particles are formed by are oxidizing metal particles of element M to form a binary element M oxide as the non-silicon-based particles ([0027, 0033]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Treger discloses the silicon-based powder according to claim 15.
Treger names a finite set of elements M including Zr as well as Mg, Ca, Al, Li, Na, K, Cs, Sr, Ba, and/or Ti which share the property of being able to reduce SiOx into Si ([0027]); it would therefore be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selecting Zr as an element M to produce Treger’s silicon-based powder with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144 I. E).
Regarding claim 22, modified Treger discloses the silicon-based powder according to claim 22.
Treger’s powder has a volumetric particle size distribution which necessarily overlaps with at least a portion of the claimed range of 17-172 nm, since Treger’s silicon-based particles comprise a comparable average particle size of <100 nm ([0010]), preferably 10-50 nm ([0020], [0031]) and constitute a significant majority (90-100 wt%) of the silicon-based powder by weight (weight being proportional to volume) ([0033]). It would thus be obvious for a skilled artisan to inherently utilize at least a portion overlapping with claim 22’s average volumetric particle size range of 17-172 nm between about 17-100 nm through producing Treger’s silicon-based powder using silicon-based particles comprising an average particle size of <100 nm with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treger (US-20090092899-A1) as applied to claim 15 in view of Morita et al. (US-20140199579-A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Treger discloses the silicon-based powder according to claim 15.
While Treger names Zr as a suitable element M ([0027]), and provides examples using 3 µm Al particles to form the non-silicon-based particles (Examples 3, 4, [0044-0047]), which approaches the claimed dNs50 size of 500 nm (0.5 µm), Treger fails to expressly provide embodiments using Zr as element M as claimed in claim 20, or disclose the use of non-silicon-based particles with a dNs50 value of at most 500 nm as claimed in claim 18.
However, Treger’s silicon-based powder is intended for a negative electrode, such as one comprising silicon-based particles (“nano-silicon”) embedded in a carbon matrix (Treger [0009]), where the non-silicon-based particles may help ease volumetric changes throughout charge/discharge ([0034]).
Morita (US20090092899A1) provides a similar negative electrode active material (100) comprising silicon oxide (102) and zirconia (104, i.e., zirconium oxide) in a carbon matrix (101, “carbonaceous substance”) (Morita, [0021-0023], FIG. 1), where the zirconia induces holes in the carbon matrix (101) to alleviate silicon expansion effects ([0029]) and prevents agglomeration when having a diameter about 0.2-2 times that of the silicon oxide particles ([0028], [0031]).
Thus, in seeking to implement Treger’s silicon-based powder in a negative electrode active material and to allow the non-silicon-based particles to ease volumetric changes during charging, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select at least Zr as the element M as claimed in claim 20 to form zirconium oxide as the non-silicon-based particles as taught by Morita, with a reasonable expectation of success as Zr is a suitable element M (Treger [0027]) (MPEP 2144.07).
Additionally, in seeking to provide the dispersion effects of the Zr non-silicon-based particles according to Morita’s teaching, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a dNs50 value of the non-silicon-based particles of around 400 nm at most, within the claimed maximum of 500 nm claimed in claim 18, since this is about 2 times the diameter of silicon-based particles with an average ds50 of 200nm at most (see rejection of claim 15). Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, being similar in scale to that of the non-silicon-based particle precursors used by Treger in example embodiments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 15-22 over 35 U.S.C. 103 under the combination of previously cited prior art Kosuzu et al. (US20030157407A1) in view of Matsuno et al. (US20190341602A1) as evidenced by University of Cambridge (“The interactive Ellingham diagram”) as applied to claims 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights